To load these with a MoneyPak though you first need to register the card (online), right?

A message on the site indicating that change in status might be useful.  Updating the wiki now.

The check to verify could require only a few bytes if connecting to a trusted service.

The client could even have a special mode where the datacasting source is the only node normally used to get the block data but the rest of the client keeps the same peer discovery and block verification as what everyone else uses.

-
While it may not appear as a "buying frenzy", there is no doubt there are buying and selling decisions being made where this this metric is considered.  As Blitz mentioned above though, since this can be manipulated it should not be trusted as an indicator when making investment decisions.

If the cost of the manipulation is less than the resultant rise in the exchange rate, expect manipulation to occur.   Right now daily transaction output volume could be doubled simply by spending 0.01 BTC from a single BTC address with 10,000 BTC one time each block.  That's easily detected though.  When spot checking I don't see these large transactions repeating in this manner.  Eyeballing is not sufficient analysis though.  Especially if the activity causing these increases comes from laundering (which would have this characteristic of bitcoins used in a single transaction resulting in a lots of transactions and multiples of that number of bitcoins showing up as output volume on the blockchain).

So the takeaway should be, if you do want to look at these metrics for investment decisions, you'll want to do analysis that is a lot more sophisticated than to just make a summary of the raw data


Well, with transaction counts up nearly 10% per month and the exchange rate holding steady at just under $5 then if someone is swishing bitcoins around to fabricate the totals they aren't getting the result they hoped for then.

What I'm trying to ascertain is if this is indicative of real, non-fabricated transactions, ... then what's the underlying reason?

Are there one or two uses of bitcoins that are taking off accounting for the growth, or is it just the bitcoin economy as a whole gaining traction, and includes everything from micro tips with BTCTip.com to those using bitcoins for paying their rent:
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=76633.msg850690#msg850690

Gives a warning on connecting to the database server, so yes -- down for now.  I've commented on the operator's IRC channel.

Yup, multiple options for cash deposit in Canada, including Virtex, Canadian Bitcoins, and more.  There's even mobile phone / SMS  -- though it is more expensive.

 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Buying_bitcoins

Total Output - 60 days, 7-day average
 - http://blockchain.info/charts/output-volume?showDataPoints=false&timespan=60days&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&scale=0




Number of Transactions - 180 days, 7-day average
 - http://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=180days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0

While these numbers can be fabricated, these look authentic and look like what they should look like as Bitcoin gains traction, particularly when they aren't accompanied by selloffs or rallies (where the bitcoin flows spike up significantly as all the transfers to and from the exchanges are what results).

The big variable though right now will be the impact of the Dwolla actions.  If all of Mt. Gox's customers who use Dwolla now must go through their new hoops that could choke off some of the funding flows, --- enough to affect the exchange rate.  Mt. Gox recently shared the amount of volume they have with Dwolla.  I can't remember the number and no longer have a link to it, it was in the tens of millions since Dwolla and Mt. Gox started working together.

The Dwolla issue will likely have some negative effect, though whether or not that is more than offset by Bitcoin use growing in other areas is not yet known.

Very few people will mess with PayPal because of the chargeback risk and the hassle PayPal causes.

Here's a link where you can buy a tiny bit of BTC using PPUSD:
 - http://minibits.weebly.com
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=72060.0

Depending on where you are, you might be able to buy using your Mobile:
 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade#SMS.2FPhone_billing

VirWoX exchange will sell to you SLL for PPUSD, and then SLL can be traded for BTC:
 - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/VirWoX

Just want to clarify here because the words you are using don't necessarily back your conclusion.

A person whose income is below certain levels is not required to file taxes.  That doesn't mean their income, from whatever source, isn't considered taxable income.  Did you intend to say that you don't need to report any Bitcoin-related income this year instead?

And related:
 - http://www.bankrate.com/finance/money-guides/turning-hobby-into-business-means-tax-breaks.aspx

[edited for clarity]

Heh, you beat me to my post by a few seconds.

Just like there are trusted parties on #bitcoin-otc trading PPUSD for MTGUSD amongst each other without any hassle from PayPal there can be those who aren't marked by Dwolla as being under this restriction who would trade Dwolla USD for MTGUSD -- often at 1:1 or near to it (as your offer was).
 - http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#bitcoin-otc-foyer
 - http://bitcoin-otc.com/trust.php

That's what it sounds like.

Ya, denying service because you won't link your Facebook account is probably something the EFF needs to jump onto before it becomes accepted practice.

 - http://www.betabeat.com/2011/12/13/as-banks-start-nosing-around-facebook-and-twitter-the-wrong-friends-might-just-sink-your-credit
 - http://www.movenbank.com

We'll likely each learn about this the next time we try to send a Dwolla payment to a bitcoin exchange.

In the U.S. they've yet to allow retail banking (consumer banking) customers do ACH push.   Add in a Yubikey requirement to allow ACH push (only with the key) and most of the problem with unauthorized transactions is solved.   The problem is banks see that switch as being too expensive, in financial terms and consumer education and support.  It is still cheaper to pass on the cost of fraud to either the customers or the merchant, and when forced to, eat a little themselves.

Which reduces the size of Dwolla's risk exposure by several orders of magnitude, for now.  I'm guessing at $0.25 per transaction they simply cannot afford even to deal with the administrative hassle coming from the fraud transactions -- either attempted or successful, so this change is one way to automate away much of it.

FYI - I don't see any posts in this thread by davout, the acquirer of InstaWallet, so I'm not sure he'll see your inquiry.

Additionally, the site still shows the previous operator's e-mail address.  So I posted an inquiry as to how to request support here:
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=67602.msg854213#msg854213

I see the site still shows "©2011 Jan Vornberger" and the e-mail address shown (presumably for support) is still jan's.

Where should requests for support be directed?

You are asking for private information to be shared on a public forum.  Just because nobody responds to your nosy inquiry doesn't mean they aren't handling things properly.

There is logic for the 30-day wait.  It states that you must have used Dwolla to transfer funds from your bank account at least 30 days prior.  Thus if a scammer did a bank transfer without the bank account holder realizing it right away, the passing of one statement cycle increases the chances the transaction would be discovered.

This will help Dwolla with Dwolla Instant as well, as if the scammer were to have created the account and applied for the line of credit, at least the chances are that the legitimate account holder will likely learn that this account and/or credit line was created before any funds were transferred to a bitcoin exchange.

There was use of Dwolla by some that never set up a bank account.  If one doesn't trust the exchanges, funds could be moved out of the exchange into Dwolla without giving them anything other than a name e-mail address (for small amounts, of course -- for larger amounts they've wanted ID for quite some time now.)

Many people were able to use Dwolla as an FDIC insured temporary holding spot after cashing out of some bitcoins.  But now, they must register with a bank and wait 30 days in order to get that money back into bitcoins.   Some of them don't even have a bank account.   (Fortunately, some reloadable debit cards will function as direct deposit for transferring cash out sooner than 30 days).


Yup -- the Facebook part is unacceptable.  The SS# I can understand, though I would think existing accounts should get grandfathered in as far as the balance that existed when this change occurred.


Isn't that bizarre?   To send money to you I need to set up a hub page so that I too can receive money from others?    Why?

I wouldn't bet that was a misunderstanding by the person editing the announcement or something to that effect.